The Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Patiala v. Sh. Jaswinder Singh Sodhi

In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh I.T.A.No. 380 of 2009 (O&M)Date of Decision:October 13, 2009 The Commissioner of Income-tax, Patiala ---Appellant versus Sh. Jaswinder Singh Sodhi ---Respondent Coram:HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ADARSH KUMAR GOELHONBLE MR. JUSTICE GURDEV SINGHHONBLE MR. JUSTICE GURDEV SINGH *** Present:Mr. Rajesh Katoch, Advocate,for the appellant *** ADARSH KUMAR GOEL, J. (Oral) 1.Revenue has preferred this appeal under Section 260A of theIncome-tax Act, 1961 (for short 'the Act') against order dated 25.11.2008passed by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Chandigarh Bench 'B',Chandigarh's passed in ITA No. 755/Chd/2008 for the assessment year2005-06 proposing to raise the following substantial questions of law :- 1. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case the ITAT was legally correct in confirming the order of CIT(A)deleting the addition of Rs. 59,59,400/- made on a/c ofdifference in book debts and stock as appearing in the books of accounts vis-a-vis the one furnished to the bank. 2. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case,the ITAT was right in upholding the CIT(A)'s order, ignoringthe fact that the said order was passed in violation of Rule46A of the IT Rules.the ITAT was right in upholding the CIT(A)'s order, ignoringthe fact that the said order was passed in violation of Rule46A of the IT Rules. 3. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case,the ITAT was right in law holding that revenue had failed tobring any contrary evidence on record to prove that the bookdebts and stock as per bank statement were false and untruewhereas it was assessee's burden to prove that these werereliable because it was the result of his own substandardmorality.”the ITAT was right in law holding that revenue had failed tobring any contrary evidence on record to prove that the bookdebts and stock as per bank statement were false and untruewhereas it was assessee's burden to prove that these werereliable because it was the result of his own substandardmorality.” 2.During the assessment, the Assessing Officer made additions tothe income of the assessees relying upon the inventory of stocks filed withthe bank by the assessee for raising loan and also the inventory of stocks intrade and book debts furnished to the bank, which were at variance withentries in books of accounts. 3.On appeal, the CIT(A) accepted the explanation of the assesseeabout the version recorded in books of accounts being correct. This viewhas been upheld by the Tribunal. It was held:- “Consequently, the authentication filed by the assessee cannotbe disbelieved. The Assessing Officer is not justified to makethe addition merely on the basis of casual figure submitted tothe bank without any corroborative evidence. The cases reliedupon, specifically from the Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court,have already been discussed in the impugned order at page No. 3, wherein it was held that the statement filed with the bankauthority cannot be the ground for making addition, therefore,we have not found any infirmity in the impugned order. Thesame is upheld.” 4.We have heard the learned counsel for the appellant. 5.Only contention pressed is that the assessee furnished writtensubmissions with fresh evidence before the CIT(A) on which remand reportwas sought from the A.O. A.O. had no opportunity to examine andinvestigate documents relied upon by the assessee for the first time in theappeal. 3, wherein it was held that the statement filed with the bankauthority cannot be the ground for making addition, therefore,we have not found any infirmity in the impugned order. Thesame is upheld.” 4.We have heard the learned counsel for the appellant. 5.Only contention pressed is that the assessee furnished writtensubmissions with fresh evidence before the CIT(A) on which remand reportwas sought from the A.O. A.O. had no opportunity to examine andinvestigate documents relied upon by the assessee for the first time in theappeal. 6.We are unable to accept this contention. It cannot be disputedwhen that Appellate Authority, in its discretion, can allow additionalevidence and seek comments of the Assessing Officer on an issue. The mainquestion is whether an adverse inference could have been drawn against theassessee, on the statement furnished to the bank when such statement wasduly explained on the basis of books of account. CIT(A) as well as theTribunal have recorded a concurrent finding of fact on the said issue. Nosubstantial question of law arises for consideration. 7 The appeal is dismissed. (ADARSH KUMAR GOEL) JUDGE (GURDEV SINGH) JUDGE